It’s weird that games nailed fun racing games back in the PS2/Xbox era. Between Burnout, Midnight Club, Need for Speed, all of them peaked. Then couldn’t repeat formula. Then on the PS3 they had Motorstorm. But really there hasn’t been a lot of fun racing games since.
Racing in VR is such a great experience, I’d love to see more of it. Simulation and arcade style. But you’re right, we need one with a robust, slow paced progression system. I remember really enjoying unlocking everything in NFS Porsche Unleashed, going through the eras, starting slow but getting slowly faster. Then NFS Underground 2 came out and still stands alone as the best example of racing progression by a large margin. Then it’s like the gameplay design has been going further back in time since then. I am using the same simple progression mechanics in new racers that I used in Sega GT 2002, and they were old then.
As to why, it feels like they don’t have AAA budgets anymore. The high quality simulator games like the Dirt series have to spend their whole wad getting the physics and performance right, there’s not much left for anything else, so it’s just menus and a simple money system. That’s just my guess, it could just be they need to hire a couple RPG designers among the gear head ones.
I lost interest when they became nothing but a shell for micro / macro transactions / "DLC". The base game is already very expensive, but no, here's some more overpriced cars and shit that you can't afford either while you chase the dream of owning a full game with a complete car park.
There is also The Crew, Forza Motorsport, Forza Horizon as well as Gran Turismo to mention a few more that I have played. Plus a whole slew of hardcore F1 titles, Nascar titles and the Trackmania series.
There might be something in there that catches your attention. Could just be a case of these not surfacing in your algorithm to get noticed.
Gran Turismo is Playstation exclusive and has only released two games the last decade. Quite sad since I have heard a lot of great things about it.
Haven’t played the crew, but it seems to follow the same “drive a supercar around a track” that Forza has.
Not saying there are no racing games, but there is a lack of variety besides the four flavors of: Microsoft racing game, EA racing game, Ubisoft racing game or Codemasters (Recently acquired by ea) racing game. Compare this to the huge variety in strategy games or shooters.
The only thing keeping racing games relevant for me are the amazing indie games, but the lack of content hinders them more than other genres imo.
Do you want themed racing games in different time periods?
If you’re using realworld(or alikes) cars, there isn’t really much more to go for, you’ve got circuit, street, rally, drift and touring cars - which really the only thing you can start to really differ is locale or time period.
F1 is F1 and F1 fans will slaughter anyone who tries to mess with F1. But also there are yearly games, since the rules change every year and the new game is the new rules.
Do you want more arcade style?
What are the indie games that have piqued your interest?
The thing is miss is immersion and progression. It feels like you get a 1000hp lambo five hours into the game, and the gameplay is just driving around a track interrupted by navigating clunky menus.
Some of my favorite indie games are “art of rally” and “revhead”, the former having great driving but no progression and the latter having great progression and customisation, just very mediocre driving.
I don't think the state of racing games is poor, it's just that they aren't as popular as they once were. And that's ok, I don't think we need a bajilion racing games coming out every year if they're gonna be shit. But to answer your question, I think right now, there aren't a lot of new games coming out that are new IPs, they're mostly a continuation of established franchises, and are mostly simulcade or full-on simulation racing games. I've been having tons of fun with Automobilista 2, for example.
But if you want to go a bit more in-depth:
On the arcade side, yeah, I suppose there aren't a lot of recent releases (maybe The Art of Rally? I think there was an Outrun-style game too?). But you still have Wreckfest, GRIP, and Redout 2. Oh, and Trackmania.
In the simulcade side of things (think Forza and Gran Turismo), there's Forza Horizon, Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo 7, WRC 24 (could also be put in the simulation racing, to be honest), and the F1 games, which are yearly releases as someone already mentioned.
As for simulation racing games, there's Le Mans Ultimate, from the rFactor devs, and a new Assetto Corsa coming out. Automobilista 2 is getting updates pretty consistently, and iRacing is still going strong and getting new content. Oh, and BeamNG, which apparently turned into a full-fledged racing game?
I think there’s not a lot of room for competition, it’s either Gran Turismo on PS5, Forza on Xbox or… um… Mario Kart? On Switch?
You could say the same thing about Football games. There’s Madden and NCAA and that’s pretty much it.
The era of having niche games like Metropolis Street Racer, Project Gotham, Speed Devils, or, heck, go back to the OG Playstation with Wipeout, Jet Moto, Destruction Derby… that’s long over.
Which is a shame because I played the HELL out of MSR/PGR.
What I find crazy is that on Playstation you got Gran Turismo in 2022 I think and there’ll be no other concurrent until Asseto Corsa Evo in probably 2026.
I’ve already so many hours of going around the Ring in GT7, but I’d really h’love an extension with a new career mode and new trophies until Asseto Corsa Evo.
I tired out “Uncle Chop’s Rocket Shop” earlier this year. It has a unique world, fun graphics and a solid gameplay loop. That being said, it seems the “repair sim” subgenre is not for me.
I’m still gonna wait and see, I think user reviews might turn out very mixed in contrast to the critics reviews. Not that I value user reviews all that much, but I’d like to see a bit more from the game before deciding anyway.
What really put me off from this game was the insanely boring dragon fight they recently showed in the PlayStation presentation, it dragged out so long too and nothing really interesting seemed to happen, it felt like a really outdated kind of boss battle, especially after games like God of War and Horizon. It just did not look that fun honestly, but perhaps story and other parts of the game are more entertaining.
Yeah I just watched Skill Up’s video and then was surprised to see so many positive reviews on this roundup. What gives? Are folks so keen for more Dragon Age that they turn a blind eye to such deficiencies? Or is it just a difference of opinion.
Yeah, I don’t get it either. What I’ve seen doesn’t look anywhere close to an 8+ out of ten rating. Will be interesting to see the player ratings on this one…
Access journalism. If you agree to say whatever EA wants EA gives you first access to the next game, which increases your views. Idk the exact process for this game, but big publishers often bribe these reviewers with expensive vacations too (it’s why they fly journalists out to demo the game instead of sending the outlets a digital demo), Bethesda did it with 76 for instance.
Just watched the first part of his video. It seems to line up perfectly with what I was expecting based on the gameplay we were shown so far, it’s just outright boring. The amount of criticism and the footage in his review does not line up with the high ratings this game got.
Looks llike it’s gonna be a skip. Shame, because visually it looks nice to me and I kinda dig the art style (except for the Qunari), but if story, animations and gameplay are bad and boring it’s gonna be a no from me.
I don’t dislike that art style in general, but to my mind it seems like a poor fit for a Dragon Age game. I guess they’re pivotinf strongly away from the series dark and gritty roots, which is unfortunate because I think that was one of its strong points.
Just heard of this guy for the first time in the chatter around reviews for this game (which has been…interesting, to say the least). Similar tastes to mine, so that’s promising for me for Veilguard. Speaking of which, sounds like I should be trying Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous.
I wait for a Digital Foundry tech review before making a purchase on AAA game these days. They tackle what’s quantifiable and add their thoughts on the game in general which is about as much as I need from a professional outlet.
Part of the issue is that modern games are usually getting fixes right up to release. Pre-release reviews tend to focus on things that aren’t likely to ever change significantly, like design and writing.
It would be nice if they gave a summary of issues they saw with a disclaimer that they may get fixed instead of omitting that information entirely.
Aggression should be part of a game, but shouldn’t be the only way to play it. Obviously, when a game is optimized, it may be the best way to play (Monster Hunter and HAME speedruns come to mind), but a lot of great games try to design so that different archetypes can coexist and play off one another.
Street Fighter 6 encourages aggression. The Drive Meter system makes it so that turtling and blocking forever will end with you in blowout, taking chip damage and having worse frame disadvantage, as well as removing your ability to use Drive moves and opening you up for stuns. However, also hidden within the Drive System are some of the tools to deter mindless aggression. Drive Impacts are big moves with armor that lead into a full combo, so if you can read a braindead attack sequence, you can Drive Impact to absorb a hit, smack them, and then combo them for 35% of their life total. There are also parries, which can refill your drive meter.
Magic: The Gathering has tried to balance the various archetypes (Aggro, Midrange, Control, and Combo) so that every format should have at least 1 competitively viable deck in each meta archetype. Typically, Aggro will be too fast for a Control deck to stabilize and kill them before they can get their engine set up. But Midrange will trade just efficiently enough (with good 2-for-1 removal or creatures) to stop the aggression, and then start plopping out creatures that Aggro will have difficulty overcoming. And Combo often has nothing to fear from Aggro, since Aggro oftentimes can’t interact with the game-winning combo pieces. And because of this system, Aggro decks have to have sideboard plans ready for whatever meta they expect at an event or tournament. Removal or protection to get over or under Midrange, and faster speed or other types of interaction to take down or disrupt Combo. Magic’s systems (Mana/lands, instant speed removal, and even the variance that comes from being a card game) don’t punish aggro directly, but they make sure that there are usually answers out there.
These are so reassuring, dear god I hope it’s good. I really really feel like this is the make it or break it for Bioware. If Veilguard does well we could see a new era of Bioware games, refreshing Dragon Age and Mass Effect.
No idea why there are so many people who want this game to fail. Bioware has realistically made two bad games, Andromeda and Anthem, and for me Andromeda has the best gameplay in the entire series, not necessarily the best story and anthem is just not great. It’s crazy the amount of bioware hate that exists that’s completely unwarranted.
I feel like the story has good ideas but ultimately fails, personally. I like the idea of struggling against inevitable tragedy, but when the cause of such tragedy was against always immediately in arms reach of you and caused by a single person it falls flat.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age_II lots of good information in the wiki page, of which none of your claims are accurate except for maybe the polarizing views on reused assets but that’s literally by design, not crunch. It sold more than origins and sold over a million copies in two weeks, that’s pretty damn good. Nice rage baiting though.
Wow knowing the asset reuse was by design makes me feel way less charitable towards DA2. (I don’t know if I’d go as far as the other commenter and say it’s “a bad game,” but I didn’t like it.)
It depends on how you frame it. I don’t see it as “hate” as I don’t hate Bioware, but objectively speaking, the work speaks for itself. Hyperbole such as disaster, catastrophe, etc are embellishments, but to say the game isn’t bad or just so-so isn’t a scathing criticism.
Anthem was treated the way it was due to ME3 and the narrative choices, for better or worse. People wanted to tell off Casey Hudson, and the game suffered unfairly. Granted it wasn’t a good game, it wasn’t as terrible as it was made out to be either.
Now on Andromeda, however, it was fairly criticized. The gameplay was fun and engaging, but the narrative and storytelling were given their fair treatment. That stuff was just bad, and the developer responses didn’t help either. The pathetic rants amounted to “I put mah heart and souuuulll into it”, and just because people worked really hard on something, doesn’t mean it was a good thing. People worked really hard in the sewers of London to get rid of fatbergs, but in the end all they achieved was moving shit around, and that’s more dignified than the trash we got in Andromeda’s writing and character animations.
Looking at the current marketing situation and the “Bioware hate” as you refer to it, I really think there’s more EA hate at this point. EA is blatantly manipulating the review scores by means of review embargos and selectively cherry picking only favorable review outlets, and in some cases we are even spotting reused catchphrases that indicate signs of coaching by EA to say positive things about the game. They do this in light of the consumer sentiment about preorders “Not touching this or preordering, I want reviews first” is a common sentiment amongst their video comments telling their marketing engagement experts to use dirty tricks like review manipulation.
I’d honestly love for Veilguard to be fantastic, but the layoffs and staff turnover tell me they didn’t value their developers, didn’t value the product, and don’t value the art or anything really beyond making some flashy flim-flam with marketable gimmicks. The reviews I’ve read mention that the characters in the game must definitely know what Tiktok is, due to the cringy dialogue, and that’s a review that gave it a favorable score.
Just wait until the objective reviews hit and this game is widely panned. That will draw the line between “hate” and “oh, this is actually shitty”, and make things especially clear.
There have been more positive reviews so far than negative, and not a single post has shown any proof that EA is manipulating reviews and cherry picking. The only thing we’ve seen is one guy at fextralife throwing out conspiracy theories about how EA hates him, another guy who’s apparently a racist and sexist asshat, and that’s pretty much it. Mortismal has even stated he wasn’t paid off or anything by EA and would be fined and his account deleted if he was and didn’t disclose that fact, which he didn’t.
Bioware has made two bad games, Andromeda and Anthem, two. One is objectively not that bad, the other is a game in a genre they’ve never dipped their toes into, and the biggest issue is that those two releases were back to back, so that apparently means they’ve gone to shit now and everything else they’ve created means nothing. It’s really sad how petty and ridiculous some people are over bioware. As for the EA hate that’s been around forever, but God forbid someone say something positive about a bioware game.
Do you have proof that EA is forcing reviewers to use catchphrases as you’ve said? I get it, we all have our hate boners, we all have our pet peeves, but damn son…the conspiracy theories and review embargo nonsense is just stupid at this point. Like you said let’s just wait for the objective reviews but how about we simply don’t write the game off because bioware apparently murdered our puppies.
This sure seems to indicate coaching on catchphrases. As for conspiracy theories, this isn’t a conspiracy, it’s pretty obvious. IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, and Polygon have a long history of rating games higher based on their budget and publisher influence. Standard review outlets are inconsistent, and since 2010 have been the butt of many jokes. This seven year old video from Dunkey albeit, satire, rather well breaks down the inconsistency between review outlet staff even highlighting their own subjective contradictions from individual reviewers (look at the bit about the Sonic game in this one).
When you look at the first wave of reviews given by those issued pre-release review copies, the trend speaks for itself.
You know, I was honestly going to give you some credit for trying, but then you edited your post and decided to turn the conversation political. Your entire argument has lost all credibility, these are video games, please try not to take them so seriously, have a nice day.
Lol, how is that political? It’s a “water makes wet” kind of thing. I’m sorry you have such fragile feelings about Bioware and don’t like the narrative. If it’s any consolation, it’s not even the same people who made the prior games. Whether the game’s a massive success or financial failure, EA’s just going to fire them all anyway. That’s cool though, we’ll see how it looks on the Steam reviews this weekend. If past experience is any indicator, whenever a publisher resorts to funny business, it’s because they have to. Nobody was needed in the defense of BG, MDK2, BG2, NWN, Kotor, Jade Empire, ME, ME2, DA:O, DA2, SW:TOR, DA:I, etc.
I don’t even really care about the studio anymore to be honest, after the layoffs and turnover, we have no idea whether this crew delivered or not, and judging from the review oddities, it paints a bleak picture. Let them sink or swim based on what EA allowed them to do, then through no true fault of their own, face a studio closure because of the obtuse fuckwads in EA corporate. Either way, the future sucks for the gaming studio called Bioware, in name only.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne